Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant State and perused the record.
(2.) WE are satisfied that there is no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the murder of deceased Sikander. There is no direct evidence nor there was any accusation against any specified person. Only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen evidence of which the only witness is P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel. Perusal of the statement of P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel does not inspire any confidence to link the accused respondent with the crime with any reasonable certainty excluding any other person to be perpetrator of the crime. Rather P.W. 16 Mohd. Jameel appears to be a chance witness, who is stated to have settled just about 2 or 3 months prior to the incident. According to his statement he is a carpenter and his presence at the taxi stand appears to be sheer co -incidence on the date Sikander is alleged to have taken vehicle from Deedwana to another place. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent vide judgment dt. 27.04.2006 rendered by Additional District Judge, (Fast Track), Parbatsar.
(3.) THE application for leave to appeal stands rejected.;